Rand's pro-racism position:
An Easily Debunked Denial
Rand's attempts to deny his pro-racism position:
And John Stossel's support of Rand's pro-racism position:
Fox News Echoes Rand Paul’s Claim that Racism and Discrimination Are Rights
I had fun mocking Paul on Facebook. For instance:
New sign at Republican Party headquarters: "Blacks and Latinos not served here."
Republicans seek to expand Rand Paulism: "We oppose laws against wife-beating and child abuse. Private individuals should be able to do whatever they want to other private individuals without government interference."
Obviously, laws against unsafe working conditions, sweatshops, child labor, etc. must go. No government interference in the marketplace!
Headline: Republicans seek return to golden era of 1890s. "Those were the days," said Rand Paul, "when robber barons could do whatever they wanted. When men didn't have to think about women, minorities, or the environment. We need to return to the times when profit and wealth trumped every other consideration."
I thought about doing a serious deconstruction of the stupidity of Paul's position. Fortunately, the brilliant Tim Wise did it for me:
Rationalizing White Supremacy: Racism, Free Markets and the Morally Obtuse Rand Paul
Basically, Paul destroys the ivory-tower idiocy of libertarianism with real-world arguments. I suggest you read the whole thing.
One point is particularly relevant here. It's the conservative idea that government action--Civil Rights laws, affirmative action, welfare, healthcare reform, ethnic studies, etc.--is wrong because it helps one class of people (poor minorities) at the expense of another (rich whites). It's the idea that America should be color-blind because, well, that's what the Constitution says.
Wise explains why this belief is dangerously naive:
To bow to the private property rights of whites under segregation would have been to capitulate to the existing distribution of stuff at that time, which distribution had come about not in a free market, such that the distribution could be said to have been fair (under market principles), but rather, as a result of government intervention. It would have meant accepting government intervention of the first order (on behalf of whites), but then saying, after the fact, that there could be no corrective intervention on behalf of those deliberately oppressed. Not to mention, those stores and restaurants that were segregated received shipments of goods on trucks subsidized by highway construction, especially after the creation of the interstate system under President Eisenhower. Shipment of goods on these government-built roads and interstates brought down the cost of those goods (and thus boosted profits for those businesses) relative to what their cost would have been had each store owner had to have his own truck, and pay privately for the roads that would bring him his products.
Even today, private businesses all receive indirect if not direct subsidies from government, such that there is no truly "private" enterprise. Unlike a private club, a business that engages in commerce is receiving any number of public benefits from government policy, and thus, to suggest the owners of said property should have the unimpeded right to do as they please is morally absurd.
Bottom line: Only someone who has never personally felt the dehumanizing sting of racial oppression could have such a childlike faith in the ability of the market to solve the problem of racism, or the adequacy of simple private boycotts to force racist business owners to change their ways. And only someone who has never had their fundamental dignity and worth questioned as a result of their skin color could suggest patience as a solution to that maltreatment. As in, the kind of patience required for markets to correct, even in theory, any number of social maladies.
"Property rights" = white power
Wise concludes by explaining how Rand's libertarian views support our society's white-power structure:
My position on neo-racists like Paul is: The majority determines what's right and wrong in America, not you. And the majority favors government action such as the Civil Rights Act. If you don't like it, get the hell out of our country.
Go somewhere where you can live in libertarian anarchy, free from government interference. Perhaps a failed Russian or African state would be your dream home. Stop your anti-minority whining and start practicing what you preach.
For more on the subject, see Libertarianism = Anarchy and Highlights of US Report to the UN on Racism.
Below: KY-SEN candidate Rand Paul (R).